There are a few documented cases where Favre reached out to get his crap out there. And I'm also sure the media comes to him all the time hoping to get a typical white-trash Jerry Springer-like comment. But why do they keep coming? Answer: because he keeps satiating the white-trash love of hate and discord, knowing it will cause the media to return. The media would flock to Bart Starr as well, if he routinely failed to act with poise, intelligence, dignity and issued hick-Springer comments about GB.

And he's done it again Per PFF now Favre has pontificated that his situation helped the Manning-Colts break-up LOL. As Hunt said i the article, it was simple: "Hey Brett we're moving on." All Favre had to to is put out his hand, give a shake, a warm hug, and say, "I wish the Pack the best, I loved my time here and RESPECT the fans." Ya know like Manning did in Indy...LOL But instead..we ALL know the rest. Yhe only difference between Manning and Favre leaving: Manning handled the team moving on from him with poise, grace professionalism, like a mature man; Favre like a child dropping to the floor and kicking and screaming because he couldn't have a Snickers bar because there were only Milky Ways in the house.

His Colts comment is a veiled/passive aggressive way of knocking GB. Some here have said "move one"...LOL Favre has not moved on, he's still mad he didn't get that Snickers bar and continues to serve as an embarrassment to the Packers. Unfortunately the wussy interviewer didn't ask Favre to identify the specific facts that support his Colts comment.

So Brett, go play your flag football game; retire your jersey and just shut the FU@K up.

It really boggles my mind how people take a headline and just surmise some weird twisted fabrication out of it while slamming someones character. Why not read the full quote or wait for it... try to understand the context of the quote? Oh my goodness! Nah, let's just be ignorant bashing morons instead, that's what the cool kids do!

Truth of the matter when it comes to any athlete. You can bet your ass that they are not as bad as the media makes them out to be, nor are they as good as the fans make them out to be. They all fall somewhere in the middle.

The guy did amazing things in his time here. Without him, no SB31 win, no Reggie White, and we probably would still be mired in losing season after losing season.So forget the messy "break up" and spend the time on remembering all the fun he, and the rest of the Packers from back then gave us!

He did stuff that ticked me off, but hey, forgive and forget time is here.

He EARNED his induction into the Packer hall of fame and his jersey retirement in my view.Being bitter hurts no one but yourself.

It really boggles my mind how people take a headline and just surmise some weird twisted fabrication out of it while slamming someones character. Why not read the full quote or wait for it... try to understand the context of the quote? Oh my goodness! Nah, let's just be ignorant bashing morons instead, that's what the cool kids do!

Truth of the matter when it comes to any athlete. You can bet your ass that they are not as bad as the media makes them out to be, nor are they as good as the fans make them out to be. They all fall somewhere in the middle.

What is the actual context? Please enlighten; I for one am obviously too ignorant and moronic to get it. But, clearly the headline matches the story perfectly.

Headline of PFF article: "Favre thinks he paved the way for Peyton to leave Indy gracefully."

Quote in article: "In my opinion, I think the Indianapolis-Peyton separation was handled correctly simply because they had seen the Packers and Favre separation not go so well,” Favre said. “You know, I think they were smart in how they handled it — that’s both sides. And so there’s a good example of learning from others’ mistakes, and your own mistakes, and moving forward.”

Only 2 differences I see are: (1) Manning was released, Favre wasn't; and (2) Favre through a public temper tantrum, manning didn't. Here's the context as I see it:

"not go so well" = GB refused to release Favre [Favre thought he was entitled to a release, though no such language was provided for in the contract].

What did Indy learn to do right? A: RELEASE THAT LONG TIME GREAT QB!

Just days before his induction, Favre is implying that 1265 did not act right by refusing to RELEASE HIM! What else could it mean? And I gotta tell ya, it bothers me that a person purporting to represent the Packers doesnt even have the self control to act w/ dignity days b4 his induction. If nothing else his statement is outrageously moronic and ignorant, and egocentric.

Did he do great QB things, YES! But he also did horrible QB things in GB.

Move on [as a player]? Sure, no problem every time; well, uhh, er until he opens his hillbilly yap again and humiliates himself and/or trashes 1265.

Move on [as a misogynist]? Really? Perhaps Penn State should move on and induct Sandusky into their HOF because his on-field performance justifies it. Maybe a touch of empathy can be invoked. How would those here react to to your mom, granddaughter, daughter, sister, wife being sexually harassed at work and/or having their free compromised into having "consensual" intercourse by a person of power that feigns attention to that young girl/women in your life? Hey, ladies you just need to "move on;" boys will be boys; the creepy old guy is going into the HOF 'cause he was such a great QB. Where the fu@K is the morality in this nation!?! No American sports HOF of any kind is just about on-field performance...NONE!

What happens if in 5-10-15 years 2-3-4 dozen women come out of the woodwork like with Cosby? ALL of us know his despicable behavior didn't begin in NY.

Move on [as a misogynist]? Really? Perhaps Penn State should move on and induct Sandusky into their HOF because his on-field performance justifies it. Maybe a touch of empathy can be invoked. How would those here react to to your mom, granddaughter, daughter, sister, wife being sexually harassed at work and/or having their free compromised into having "consensual" intercourse by a person of power that feigns attention to that young girl/women in your life? Hey, ladies you just need to "move on;" boys will be boys; the creepy old guy is going into the HOF 'cause he was such a great QB. Where the fu@K is the morality in this nation!?! No American sports HOF of any kind is just about on-field performance...NONE!

What happens if in 5-10-15 years 2-3-4 dozen women come out of the woodwork like with Cosby? ALL of us know his despicable behavior didn't begin in NY.

What is the actual context? Please enlighten; I for one am obviously too ignorant and moronic to get it. But, clearly the headline matches the story perfectly.

I disagree. I do not think you are ignorant or moronic. We are all simply about seven years worn out about the topic and do not care enough to dig back into it. It's easier to just fling negativity instead because the mere thought of reliving that troubled time was for most quite negative.

What is the actual context? Please enlighten; I for one am obviously too ignorant and moronic to get it. But, clearly the headline matches the story perfectly.

Headline of PFF article: "Favre thinks he paved the way for Peyton to leave Indy gracefully."

Quote in article: "In my opinion, I think the Indianapolis-Peyton separation was handled correctly simply because they had seen the Packers and Favre separation not go so well,” Favre said. “You know, I think they were smart in how they handled it — that’s both sides. And so there’s a good example of learning from others’ mistakes, and your own mistakes, and moving forward.”

.

The headline makes it sound as if Favre said "I'm the reason the Colts and Manning parted correctly" and he said nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the quote you provided did Favre say he was the reason the Colts and Manning parted correctly. What he did say was that the Colts saw what happened in Green Bay and they didn't want that to happen to them so they handled it differently/correctly. He does make it sound like the way things happened in Green Bay was a major factor in the way the Colts decided to proceed and that may or may not be the case but he doesn't say it was HIM that made the colts proceed the way they did.

No doubt Favre still feels the whole thing was handled incorrectly. I think the Packers probably do as well as do most of the fans. Favre haters still want to make it seem as though he thinks the Packers were the only ones who did anything wrong and he has said multiple times that he shares the blame for the poor way things turned out.

Yeah you see this whole analogy doesn't make any sense unless the girlfriend is Brett and he said he wanted to breakup and then said wait I want you back and when you said "no, I've moved on" and Brett says "fine give me your best friends number so I can pork their brains out and they can tell you what you're missing!". Hell, even adding that extra context to it still makes the analogy shaky at best.

Brett screwed up by deciding before he was ready to (ask any athlete, they will say the worst time to decide is within that first month or two of the end of season). The Packers screwed up by assuming he'd play the following season and pressuring him into a decision. And all of them screwed up big time with communication.

No one in the situation is without a large portion of failure. And yes, there is absolutely no doubt the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning were fully aware of the disaster here in Green Bay. If they were not cognizant of it, then they are not all that competent. I'm not saying they wouldn't have handled it amicably because let us remember, Peyton was NOT demanding to be TRADED to a team within the division. That fact is what caused this whole mess. If Brett said trade me to another team outside of the division, then the Packers would have obliged. Believe me, the Packers did NOT want a war with the face of their franchise, but you don't freaking trade a quarterback to a team in your division that is precisely just a quarterback away from being a Super Bowl contender.

Brett wanting to show the Packers he could still play is where the separation between Brett and the Packers is immensely different than Peyton and the Colts.

That's just how I see it and the more I think about it, the more I recall about it and the more absurd it is for fans to hate Brett solely for what happened. I really think those who hate Brett for the whole wanting to be a Vikings player and then joining them are the same group that didn't like Brett to begin with. Which is fine, of course.

What he did say was that the Colts saw what happened in Green Bay and they didn't want that to happen to them so they handled it differently/correctly.

Everything else is semantics, but scchind you hit the nail on the head with the above statement.

What is Favre saying was done differently/correctly by Colts that GB didn’t? There is only one possibility: Colts let Manning be a FA; GB refused to release Favre!

Manning was under contract; but if Colts didn’t pay $28M bonus at start of league year; he was a UFA. Colts didn’t “release” Manning; they simply chose not to pay the Bonus. And as was demonstrated in the other thread; the Colts did what was most fiscally responsible for the Colts. If Manning was signed to play, say for $1M, the Colts would not have released him either. This transaction was business and had NOTHING to do with GB...NOTHING.

For Favre to believe this and then actually publically announce this demonstrates a deep-seeded sociopathy; he truly believes everyone's thinking and the world revolve around him. I’d think him insane if I gave him credit for having an IQ above a turnip and a normal sense of worth. Maybe next Favre will say the rules committee considered his career when moving back the extra point or installing the play challenge system.

The Favre retirement drama-queen stuff is a red hearing. Only important fact is Favre eventually announced he was playing and the contract dictated the rest. Favre had 2 choices [retire or report] and the Packers were fine either way. If Favre reported the Packers had 3 choices:

1. Cut him;2. Trade him; or 3. Let him “compete” and most likely back-up Aaron Rodgers [Pack was fine with this too].

The least fiscally responsible move for Ted Thompson was #1; Ted Thompson would have been a capologist moron to cut Favre. The most cap and long term team efficient thing to do #2. Wow, looky there: Ted Thompson did what was the best fiscally and practically for Teams’ viability-is anyone shocked by this? It’s business, what could Favre’s objection possibly be?

The Packers did NOTHING WRONG! The irrational “Favre lovers” desperately search for some way to justify his childish behavior. They call people with scholarly judgments like the foregoing as “Favre Haters” LOL [And yea, I despise Favre; but for Favre2’s [1999-present] BS on the field as a Packer and his off field crap]; and they red herring in the “divorce-card” to irrationally and confusingly cover Favre’s tantrum bullsh!t by proposing some feckless and factless idea that there’s fault on both sides. Folks, GB and Favre were not married...They had a CONTRACT! Here let me spell it...C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. 1265, Indy-brass and Manning conducted their CONTRACTUAL business like gentlemen and businessmen and allowed the CONTRACT and their valid interests [IE as defined by the CONTRACT] to dictate their every move. Child Hick Boy got mad because he was not given his release in derogation of his CONTRACT; he expected 1265-brass to breach their fiduciary duty to the stockholders, so he could have his contract defying wish.

This is very simple!

PS: This is not a rehash of old stuff because Favre said what he said a few days ago. “The past” is only interjected to provide context for his comments.

PSS: Buckeye you're spot on about timing....LOL I noticed Aaron Rodgers had a previous engagement for the July thing...I'm waiting for Aaron Rodgers to announce he haa a previous engagement for T'giving Bears game, LOL.

Everything else is semantics, but scchind you hit the nail on the head with the above statement.

What is Favre saying was done differently/correctly by Colts that GB didn’t? There is only one possibility: Colts let Manning be a FA; GB refused to release Favre!

Manning was under contract; but if Colts didn’t pay $28M bonus at start of league year; he was a UFA. Colts didn’t “release” Manning; they simply chose not to pay the Bonus. And as was demonstrated in the other thread; the Colts did what was most fiscally responsible for the Colts. If Manning was signed to play, say for $1M, the Colts would not have released him either. This transaction was business and had NOTHING to do with GB...NOTHING.

For Favre to believe this and then actually publically announce this demonstrates a deep-seeded sociopathy; he truly believes everyone's thinking and the world revolve around him. I’d think him insane if I gave him credit for having an IQ above a turnip and a normal sense of worth. Maybe next Favre will say the rules committee considered his career when moving back the extra point or installing the play challenge system.

The Favre retirement drama-queen stuff is a red hearing. Only important fact is Favre eventually announced he was playing and the contract dictated the rest. Favre had 2 choices [retire or report] and the Packers were fine either way. If Favre reported the Packers had 3 choices:

1. Cut him;2. Trade him; or 3. Let him “compete” and most likely back-up Aaron Rodgers [Pack was fine with this too].

The least fiscally responsible move for Ted Thompson was #1; Ted Thompson would have been a capologist moron to cut Favre. The most cap and long term team efficient thing to do #2. Wow, looky there: Ted Thompson did what was the best fiscally and practically for Teams’ viability-is anyone shocked by this? It’s business, what could Favre’s objection possibly be?

The Packers did NOTHING WRONG! The irrational “Favre lovers” desperately search for some way to justify his childish behavior. They call people with scholarly judgments like the foregoing as “Favre Haters” LOL [And yea, I despise Favre; but for Favre2’s [1999-present] BS on the field as a Packer and his off field crap]; and they red herring in the “divorce-card” to irrationally and confusingly cover Favre’s tantrum bullsh!t by proposing some feckless and factless idea that there’s fault on both sides. Folks, GB and Favre were not married...They had a CONTRACT! Here let me spell it...C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. 1265, Indy-brass and Manning conducted their CONTRACTUAL business like gentlemen and businessmen and allowed the CONTRACT and their valid interests [IE as defined by the CONTRACT] to dictate their every move. Child Hick Boy got mad because he was not given his release in derogation of his CONTRACT; he expected 1265-brass to breach their fiduciary duty to the stockholders, so he could have his contract defying wish.

This is very simple!

PS: This is not a rehash of old stuff because Favre said what he said a few days ago. “The past” is only interjected to provide context for his comments.

PSS: Buckeye you're spot on about timing....LOL I noticed Aaron Rodgers had a previous engagement for the July thing...I'm waiting for Aaron Rodgers to announce he haa a previous engagement for T'giving Bears game, LOL.

I'd have benched Favre at halftime of the 2007 NFCCG. And I said so at the time.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.